Homestead mailing list

[Clansgian AT wmconnect.com]

> >Something 42% of docs are now considering closing their offices, and are 
> just waiting the outcome of the litigation initiated by the State Atty 
> Gen's.  
> 

There's a stock scene in sitcoms and movies where the cocky belligerent 
fellow is offended and jumps toward the offender while his friends restrain 
him 
by the arms while he yells "Let me at him, let me at him!"     The the 
friends let him go and he stops, straightens his tie, looks left and right 
and 
mumbles, "Yeah ... ah ... OK .."

So all these doctors are going to close their offices, are they.  Horse 
hockey!  And then do what?  Oh, I'm such a brilliant fellow I could be making 
millions as a CEO but instead I've dedicated myself to medicine!  Reminds me 
so much of the Jim Croche song "Car Wash Blues."  

It's a lot like we keep hearing there's a shortage of teachers,  Go to any 
public place and throw a handful of gravel and you will hit 25 people who 
have degrees in education and could teach.  

But back to medicine, the problem is not primarily malpractice nor any of 
the other things mentioned, it is a mass and public hallucination that 16% or 
more of all our efforts (GDP) needs to be devoted to us staying healthy and 
treating out disease.

Throughout history there has always been one group of people who rise up in 
a society, convince people that they are doomed without them, then sponge 
off most of the wealth for themselves.  In some societies it was the 
military, in others the clergy, .... make us the wealthiest amongst you or 
else you 
will be invaded, make us the wealthiest amonst you or else you will go to 
hell.

Now days it's medicine.  Make the doctors a very wealthy class with a vast 
army of acolytes (nurses, technicians, therapists, etc.) to lord over or 
else you are going to die.

There is no reason that "health care" should be anywhere near 16% of the 
GDP.

First, says I, a health care system overall would have to stop inventing 
and treating imaginary illnesses.  As I've said before, I did work for a long 
time for one of the largest pharmaceutical companies ever (GlaxoSmithKline) 
and was witness to the process whereby the company pulled old drugs from 
it's repertoire that had been supplanted by better drugs from its competition 
and than invent some disease for that drug to cure.  Drug first, disease 
afterwards.

Next, any condition that could be treated by diet, exercise, and meditation 
should be ineligable for medical intervention unless the person wants to 
pay for the whole thing out of pocket.  You'd immediately eliminate about 50% 
of all medical treatment with this policy.

Then eliminate insurance (or else go with a single payer).  People are 
presented with the myth that insurance companies want to keep medical costs 
down.  Nothing could be farther from the case.  The industry operates from a 
percent of the total amount of money involved.  Let's suppose that lawn care 
operated like "health care".  Instead of anyone paying the mowers directly, 
they all purchased lawn care policies.  If  you owned and ran a lawn care 
policy company which by regulation (same currently as health care) had to 
disburse 80% if its gross reciepts to mowers and kept the rest .... would it 
be 
more to your advantage  if mowing a lawn cost $20 or $400?  You have no 
incentive to keep the cost to policy holders down ... just the opposite.

One might wonder how some medieval societies where willing to live in 
abject poverty while the large cathedrals were being built and bishops 
dressed in 
gold trimmed robes.  Well just look around at our "health care" industry 
and you'll see that things haven't changed all that much.

</HTML>